4chan archive /lgbt/ (index)
2015-09-30 10:13 5007719 Anonymous Pansexuality. Is this a solid argument against it. (1432610582173.gif 240x240 509kB)
I've been thinking a lot about the topic of pansexuality and whether or not its a legitimate sexual orientation, and I really need other peoples input on this. Sexual orientation is the attraction to biological sex. Simple as that. You can be either Male -> Female Male -> Male Male -> Both Male -> Neither Female -> Male Female -> Female Female -> Both Female -> Neither I used to feel like I understood pansexuality, thinking that it's really being apathetic to biological sex, like you only care about the personality or whatever. But wouldn't that mean you're asexual? If not, then you still find people sexually attractive and that it doesn't matter if its male or female. So you're attracted to both? This is where they say "It doesn't matter if you're transgender or non-binary". First of all, its sexual attraction, gender has absolutely nothing to do with what you find biologically, physically attractive, so non-binary and all that stuff (which im really not that open to, admittedly) is irrelevant. "Doesn't matter about them being trans" Would that mean that bisexuals don't find any trans people attractive at all? That it's exclusively pansexuals that can feel sexually attracted to transgender people? Because I think that's not true at all. What do you guys think? Is this a valid argument against pansexuality, or am I completely wrong?

2 min later 5007721 Anonymous
"Sexual attraction is 100% biological" is a bogus fucking argument. Like don't even try and tell me you've ever been more/less attracted to someone after you got to know them.

5 min later 5007729 Anonymous
The moment you try to go past the three broad categories of homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual it becomes meaningless tumblr tier wankery. No two people on earth will have the exact same sexual preferences, it doesn't mean we need to assign everyone their own special snowflake label

8 min later 5007736 Anonymous
I think of being pan as an attraction modifier You know how you would rate someone a 6/10 just on looks but if they were nice and shit you would bump them up to like a 7 or 8? Now apply that to the "Am I going to sleep with someone" threshold. Pansexuals would add more to a rating based on personality than looks. So not a gender or physical attraction scale but a personality scale. Like you would rate someones personality a 7/10 and bump them up to a 8 or 9 based on looks

28 min later 5007778 Anonymous
pan is literally just a pretentious form of bisexuality >>5007721 sexual attraction IS biological being attracted to someone's personality after getting to know them better isn't the same thing

3 hours later 5008005 Anonymous
>>5007778 When it comes to developing sexual attraction, your upbringing and environment are just as important as your biology. Put a child on an island with some behaviorists and most of the time they'll be able to give the kid any orientation or paraphilia. Also OP, the definition of sexual orientation varies- a lot of people define it as attraction to sex, a lot of people define it as attraction to gender, and some define it as a combination of the two. Pansexuality doesn't work if you think it's about dichotomous biological sexes, but it's much more logical if you think it's about a potentially infinite amount of genders.

3 hours later 5008028 Anonymous
>>5008005 There aren't an infinite amount of genders. There are males, and females, sometimes there are people who display hermaphroditic traits(trannies included here), but even then they tend to identify with one gender. This idea that there is more then that is ridiculous, and has no factual basis.

2.464 0.036